357 Posted March 23, 2019 at 12:30 AM Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 12:30 AM Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself includedRather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.I sent $50 through PayPal marked Brown case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted March 23, 2019 at 01:04 AM Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 01:04 AM FYI (you know who you are. Thank you for the suggestion)http://i.imgur.com/BZ34vCz.jpgThis interests me greatly. So many different stories and so much that makes no sense, I hope they respond and not deny the request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markeb2800 Posted March 23, 2019 at 11:05 AM Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 11:05 AM Sadly, here in Illinois our only hope is the courts. It shouldn't be this way in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 23, 2019 at 02:06 PM Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 02:06 PM Ran the two orders through Acrobat OCR. Posting the searchable PDFs. First is the 10/16 order, second is the 2/14 order. Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-10_16_2018-OCR.pdf Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-2_14_2018-OCR.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted March 24, 2019 at 10:47 PM Author Share Posted March 24, 2019 at 10:47 PM Out of curiosity, do we know what happened that got her charged? Someone accused her of firing the gun in the air, witnesses testified she did not, there was no evidence the gun had been fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted March 25, 2019 at 03:31 AM Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 03:31 AM Looks like the appealte defender's office is handling the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtr2009 Posted March 25, 2019 at 06:33 AM Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 06:33 AM (edited) The 10-16 order is funny. I don't know why the court expanded its argument from the 2-14 ruling since I can't see the responses filed after 2-14 but it's funny. The court says the law is unconstitutional because it states you must have the FOID "on your person" if in "constructive possession", and since you are in constructive possession at all times while at home the law means you could never not be carrying your FOID on your person while in the house. Ie, the law is unconstitutional because you'd have to shower with your FOID to comply. LOL Edited March 25, 2019 at 06:34 AM by gtr2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted March 25, 2019 at 11:50 AM Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 11:50 AM The 10-16 order is funny. I don't know why the court expanded its argument from the 2-14 ruling since I can't see the responses filed after 2-14 but it's funny. The court says the law is unconstitutional because it states you must have the FOID "on your person" if in "constructive possession", and since you are in constructive possession at all times while at home the law means you could never not be carrying your FOID on your person while in the house. Ie, the law is unconstitutional because you'd have to shower with your FOID to comply. LOL Wouldn’t you be in ‘constructive possession’ of your FOID card if it was anywhere in the house. ^ this *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted March 25, 2019 at 01:11 PM Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 01:11 PM Looks like the appealte defender's office is handling the case. That was the situation when we found out her attorney is retiring. That has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huski92 Posted March 25, 2019 at 01:37 PM Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 01:37 PM That’s good news. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:26 PM Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:26 PM Now here is a first. Second City Cop Blog is now quoting us: FOID Card "Unconstitutional!This is going to the Illinois Supreme Court, and probably the US Supreme Court. From the Illinois Carry website:This is a case in my own circuit court that we have been monitoring for the past year. The court ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. The IL Attorney General has appealed the case to the IL Supreme Court. Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional. We were in contact with the attorney for this case and discovered he was retiring and will not be representing Ms. Brown at the IL Supreme Court level. We have sought legal representation for Ms. Brown and believe the case will be in good hands. More news to follow!Sounds like a bunch more taxpayer money to be wasted courtesy of the democrats coming up soon!Labels: gun issues POSTED BY SCC AT 12:01 AM 11 COMMENTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FF1984 Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:57 PM Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:57 PM Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional. I know we are all well aware of how BS this system is but when they spell it out like above, it makes me wonder how it's been allowed to stand for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted March 25, 2019 at 05:22 PM Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 05:22 PM We didn't have Heller and McDonald. You're all living in a post Heller world when Mortong Grove's handgun ban was found to be constitutional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger52 Posted March 26, 2019 at 01:35 AM Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 01:35 AM Literally just came by to wish you all,well, perhaps not the best of luck but the best of timing in terms of the next court(s) the case gets heard in. I have close friends in IL, so just wanted to tack on some well-wishing. It occurs to me that, post-Heller or not, it is sad that no one in a court seems to have embraced the 2nd Amendment in the way that Murdock v. Pennsylvania embraced the First, e.g., "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." and the doctrine of "freedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position", indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative. Would that more jurists took that approach with the 2nd. Fair winds & following seas in your journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted March 26, 2019 at 05:04 AM Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 05:04 AM So, if the FOID requirement is unconstitutional to Brown, what about ". . . nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause? Fourteenth Amendment? Fourteenth Amendment? If it applies to Brown v. Board of Education and also applies to everyone, than how can this Brown v. not ALSO apply to everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:03 PM Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 12:03 PM How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?Was asking the same question. Why as applied rather than facial? Think of it from the perspective of a defense lawyer. Job is to get YOUR client acquitted. Not help millions of fellow residents. Her counsel was apparently OSAD (Office of State Appellate Defender) and likely plead it as applied because he was throwing wet noodles against a wall. Just so happens that one stuck. He wasn't thinking BIG picture. Just "give my client her right to counsel."That being said, if it's unconstitutional as applied in this case, it's unconstitutional on its face because the same onerous BS is placed on everyone who wishes to own a firearm for lawful purposes. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted March 26, 2019 at 05:43 PM Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 05:43 PM How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?Was asking the same question. Why as applied rather than facial? Think of it from the perspective of a defense lawyer. Job is to get YOUR client acquitted. Not help millions of fellow residents. Her counsel was apparently OSAD (Office of State Appellate Defender) and likely plead it as applied because he was throwing wet noodles against a wall. Just so happens that one stuck. He wasn't thinking BIG picture. Just "give my client her right to counsel." That being said, if it's unconstitutional as applied in this case, it's unconstitutional on its face because the same onerous BS is placed on everyone who wishes to own a firearm for lawful purposes. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk That being the case, perhaps it would be a very ripe time for a class-action lawsuit using that fact as determined by this decision to challenge the FOID law once and for all. Does IllinoisCarry have the ear of some hard-charging Second Amendment/civil rights attorneys that would be open to entertaining pursuing this? Surely we can GoFundMe, even just among the thousands on this board and their families and friends who support firearm rights, a considerable retainer fee to get the ball rolling. I have an extra $500 in my shooting funds jar that is just sitting around to either purchase a new toy or waiting for my favorite ammo manufacturer to have a big discount code sale. I'd happily repurpose that for a donation if I knew it would actually be applied to that cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchet Posted March 26, 2019 at 05:52 PM Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 05:52 PM I think we would have to wait for the case to be final before that route is traveled. Who knows it might get over turned on appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X Ring Posted March 26, 2019 at 08:55 PM Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 08:55 PM Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself includedRather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case. Can you provide a link or info on how to do this, for those of us that aren't too savoy? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted March 26, 2019 at 09:26 PM Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 09:26 PM Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case. Can you provide a link or info on how to do this, for those of us that aren't too savoy? Thanks in advance.Donation page...http://www.illinoiscarry.com/subscribe_donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted March 27, 2019 at 08:17 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 08:17 PM Imagine the roadblock this would throw in JB & Madigan's way if this case goes in Brown's favor. Wouldn't that put a "knot in their knickers" !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted March 27, 2019 at 08:36 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 08:36 PM Imagine the roadblock this would throw in JB & Madigan's way if this case goes in Brown's favor. Wouldn't that put a "knot in their knickers" !! It would toss the antis into chaos, at least in this state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:24 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:24 PM Imagine the roadblock this would throw in JB & Madigan's way if this case goes in Brown's favor. Wouldn't that put a "knot in their knickers" !! It would toss the antis into chaos, at least in this state. It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway. Once upon a time, the argument in favor of the FOID was that anyone could do a background check on anyone just by checking the validity of their FOID; and all the legal firearms were already known to be in the possession of people with FOIDs. Therefore universal background checks and firearm registration were unnecessary for those purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:31 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:31 PM I wonder if Kwame has the cajones to take this to SCOTUS if he doesn't like the outcome. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunuser17 Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:45 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:45 PM (edited) The bigger question right now is whether the Illinois Supreme Court, led by Anne Burke, is likely to affirm the trial court's finding. Given the political makeup of the Illinois Supreme Court, my first thought is that the odds at this point favor reversal and an upholding of the FOID law from a political perspective. Then it becomes a US Supreme Court fight. The Illinois Supreme Court could (1) uphold the statute entirely, or (2), I believe, the Ill. Sup. Court could just strike the fee provision and uphold the rest of the statute, or (3) strike the statute in its entirety. Right now there is little to do but wait the appeal and the decision. Luckily for us, the case does not go through the intermediate appellate court and, instead, goes straight to the Illinois Supreme Court, so we will have a decision more quickly. Edited March 27, 2019 at 09:48 PM by gunuser17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:51 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:51 PM It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway. And that leaves open the same argument about a 'tax on exercising a right' that is unless these rolled out universal background checks are going to be free? And I would argue that a database of those that choose to exercise a right is an infringement upon the right itself, but that is an argument for another day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:52 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 09:52 PM The bigger question right now is whether the Illinois Supreme Court, led by Anne Burke, is likely to affirm the trial court's finding. Given the political makeup of the Illinois Supreme Court, my first thought is that the odds at this point favor reversal and an upholding of the FOID law from a political perspective. Then it becomes a US Supreme Court fight. The Illinois Supreme Court could (1) uphold the statute entirely, or (2), I believe, the Ill. Sup. Court could just strike the fee provision and uphold the rest of the statute, or (3) strike the statute in its entirety. Right now there is little to do but wait the appeal and the decision. Luckily for us, the case does not go through the intermediate appellate court and, instead, goes straight to the Illinois Supreme Court, so we will have a decision more quickly. I think the whole thing will have to go. They can't just strike the fee because then a FOID would still require a "permit" to exercise a constitutional right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunuser17 Posted March 27, 2019 at 10:07 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 10:07 PM I am not sure that simply requiring a free permit would be prohibited. Cities are allowed to require permits for parades or speakers corners even though there is a free speech right that prohibits government interference. Churches still have to get building permits despite the first amendment exercise of religion clause. I wouldn't be surprised to see an argument by the the Illinois Supreme Court hanging its hat on something like since requiring building permits or special zoning for church construction is permitted in spite of the "free exercise" provision of the 1st amendment, so are the FOID provisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted March 27, 2019 at 10:11 PM Share Posted March 27, 2019 at 10:11 PM It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway. And that leaves open the same argument about a 'tax on exercising a right' that is unless these rolled out universal background checks are going to be free? ... UBC wouldn't be free. It would be the same FFL-transfer fee we already know, but it would be a one-time cost associated with transferring the firearm. There'd just be no on-going fee only to possess a firearm. Eliminating FFL transfer fees on constitutional grounds would be difficult, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:35 AM Share Posted March 28, 2019 at 12:35 AM Cities are allowed to require permits for parades or speakers corners even though there is a free speech right that prohibits government interference. Yes, the government can place nondiscriminatory and narrowly drawn minimal (no more than cost) monetary fees, time and place restrictions on a right when it's deemed it will stress resources or will impede the pedestrian or vehicle movement or interfere with peace, but just the same nothing stops those same people even in small groups from walking and speaking along the same exact routes or doing it a park at other times without a permit when there is no need for additional resources and it's not impeding others. Plus there must be a fee waiver procedure for those that can't afford the fees. Even so this 'assembly' or 'public display' fee is actually something the ACLU actively lobbies against. Churches still have to get building permits despite the first amendment exercise of religion clause. And the 2nd equivalent of that would be that gun ranges still need building permits also, it's not a fee on exercising the right it's a fee on building a structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now